Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support)

[DJ Chase]

On Sun Aug 14, 2022 at 6:35 PM EDT, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2022-08-14T14:49:10+0000, DJ Chase wrote:
> > On Sun Aug 14, 2022 at 9:56 AM EDT, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > > DJ Chase wrote on Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 05:27:34PM +0000:
> > >
> > > > Have we ever considered a de jure *roff standard?
> > >
> > > No, i think that would be pure madness given the amount of working
> > > time available in any of the roff projects.
>
> Mark your calendars--Ingo and I are in substantial agreement.  ;-)
>
> > This is very sad to hear.
>
> I think the take-away here is that the decision to formally standardize
> a technology, like many things, is an economic one.  There are costs and
> benefits.  Being seduced by the benefits without a full understanding of
> the costs often leads to remorse.  (And, in many domains, fat
> commissions for sales personnel.)
>
> > That’s probably because *I* massively overrate the importance of
> > standardization (I mean I literally carry a standards binder with me).
> > Still, though, it’s rather annoying that end users — especially
> > programmers — don’t value standards as much.
>
> I think it is less that programmers value standards in the wrong amount,
> than that they disregard them for the wrong reasons--like "moving fast"
> and building fragile solutions that will cost more on the back end after
> higher-paid decision makers have moved on to greener pastures.
>
> Nothing succeeds like handing your successor a trash fire.
>
> > Would an informal de jure standard
>
> You just defined "de facto standard".  ;-)
>
> "De jure" is Latin for "of the law".  If something is not codified in
> "law", or a normative document like a formal standard, then what is
> "standard" is simply the intersection of prevailing practices.

By “informal de jure”, I meant ‘de jure, but written in an informal
manner’.

> > be of any use? Like how TOML just has a specification, but it’s
> > somewhat usable as a standard because it’s been pretty stable and
> > because it’s written clearly enough.
>
> A purely descriptive document, mainly comprising a matrix of features
> with escape sequence, request, and predefined register names on one axis
> and the names of implementations on the other, with version numbers and
> commentary populating the elements, could be a useful thing to have.

I’m on it (except not really, because we’re in the middle of a move,
school resumes shortly, and etc. But eventually™, I’m on it).

Cheers,
-- 
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs